- This topic has 363 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
What would you recommend?
DY: YD 53:4 IS a chumra. See Shach and Taz that we are Meikil with any minimal Tlia.
So is 48:12, because a child has no Ne’emanus.
Hello99,
YD 53:4 : Yes you need a tlia, but it’s otherwise assur meiikar hadin. The term “?? ?????? ??????” is obviously only used where there is another approach, but still represents the basic din according to the one using it.
48:12: See Shach, who explains it’s a gilui milsa because there’s already raglayim l’davar. Sounds meikar hadin to me.
To me, a “chumra” means it’s optional. I don’t think one has a right to be meikel in these cases without additional cause.
However, HaRav Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe YD 1:45 and 46 explicitly rules like those who are altogether lenient, as the sole issue is Chasnus which is not relevant. This is also the position of the Tzitz Eliezer, Rav Ovadia Yosef, Rav Neventhal and Rav Belsky.
The bottom line is that I remain with my original position; the Halacha is that it is Mutar, but there are grounds to be Machmir.
Thanks for the mareh m’komos (B”A). I’ll check out the IG”M, bl”n.
I wasn’t disputing that there are sources l’hatir (TL”M brought in P”T, etc.), only that the tzad to be machmir is only a chumra.
Hello99,
I checked the Igros Moshe. It is not as you say. Here are the relevant quotes.
YD 1:45:
?????????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ???”? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?”? ??????
He agrees with the sevara of the matirim, but is only willing to be mattir for bread in a commercial establishment, in conjuction with his earlier sevara.
YD 1:46:
????? ?????? ????? ???”? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????”? ?? ????????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????
Clearly, although he personally would be mattir, he does not do so in the face of the consensus of the Acharonim. (He is also clearly equating other issurim of maachalei akum with yayin.)
DY: Wow you really know how to twist an Igros Moshe out of context! He writes a blanket Heter on Mechalelei Shabbos, because the sole concern is Chasnus which is not relevant. He only consents to be Machmir by wine.
No, I read it right. If you think it’s possible to read it the other way, you’ll still have a hard time explaining the first one.
You are actually missing the context; he’s contrasting all other issurim of maachalei akum with cholov akum. He mentions yayin because that’s where the acharonim are explicit.
Hello99, any comment?
You haven’t explained why he needs another sevara to be matir a mechalel Shabbos’ pas. If he holds l’maaseh that a mechalel Shabbos has the din of a Yid (I know he holds it in sevara), he should be matir even if it wasn’t difficult to hire other workers.
Where does he state that their halachos are intrinsically different?
DY: “You haven’t explained why he needs another sevara to be matir a mechalel Shabbos’ pas”
He doesn’t
“If he holds l’maaseh that a mechalel Shabbos has the din of a Yid, he should be matir even if it wasn’t difficult to hire other workers”
He is
You didn’t read it carefully. You are confusing the part regarding non-Jewish workers with Mechalelei Shabbos.
“Where does he state that their halachos are intrinsically different?”
Beginning of 1:46. We forbid a Mechalel Shabbos for wine but not Bishul. The obvious reason is because Mumar may be Menasech but no risk of Chasnus.
“You haven’t explained why he needs another sevara to be matir a mechalel Shabbos’ pas”
He doesn’t
No, he writes: ???? ?? ????? ?”? ??????
The obvious reason is because Mumar may be Menasech
Actually, in this teshuva, R’ Moshe explains how it’s not because of that. He comes out that it’s based on minhag. Whether bishul would be included would presumably be dependent on what the minhag was.
the majority of Poskim… a Mechalel Shabbos does NOT create Bishul Akum.
What’s your majority? The machmirim include: PR”CH, PR”MG, Pischei Teshuva (113 aleph), CHZ”I, CH”S. You added R’ Elyashiv as well (I did’t see it inside.)
You mentioned the meikilim as: Tiferes l’Moshe, Pischei Teshuva, Yabia Omer, Halichos Olam, Tzitz Eliezer, and, sort of, Minchas Yitzchak.
So far, it’s even. I guess R’ Moshe would be the machria.
(My point isn’t really the precise numbers, it’s that the machmirim are not a daas yochid.)
DY: The second Teshuva is clear that he is lenient on a Mechalel Shabbos without any other factors to consider.
The second Teshuva is clear that he is lenient on a Mechalel Shabbos without any other factors to consider.
I still disagree.
it is clear that his intention is not to minimize the leniency of the Mechalel Shabbos
I agree, his intention was not to minimize that din; it was to be matir the bread, but it’s still clear that he doesn’t allow his sevara to be matir all pas of a mechalel Shabbos doesn’t stand on its own.
This from Halachically Speaking:
According to some poskim the bread of a non-frum
Jew is also included in the above issur and one is forbidden to eat it. 7
7. Refer to Pischei Teshuva Y.D. 112:1, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 72:2, Darchei Teshuva 112:5, Kaf Hachaim 11,
Igros Moshe Y.D. 1:45 who are not so convinced. Refer to Orchos Rabbeinu 3:page 79:40 quoting the opinion of the
Chazon Ish. Refer to Yabea Omer Y.D. 5:10, Halichos Olom 7:pages 92-96 in depth. In regard to those who were
is lenient. Also refer to Bishul Yisroel pages 412-413.
Here is the Mahara”m Schick.
DY: “I still disagree”
Why?
“but it’s still clear that he doesn’t allow his sevara to be matir all pas of a mechalel Shabbos doesn’t stand on its own”
Not true
Both point were already addressed. See Mahara”m Shick I linked above that there is no reason to be mechalek between yayin and pas, as well as the IG”M from six posts back (click on the word “this”).
Yes you did, and I already refuted them.
I also do not understand why you think Reb Moshe equated Bishul to Yayin. He explicitly wrote that regarding Bishul a Mechalel Shabbos is not equivalent to a Goy ?? ????????? ?????? ????. It is obvious that he distinguishes between them. While he does not specify why, the explanation is simple, as the Shach I quoted says; Bishul is due to Chasnus, while Yayin depends on Avoda Zara.
I don’t think so, R’ Moshe Feinstein does. (I think most poskim disagree).
???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???, ????? ???
???? ????? ??????, ??? ???? ????? ??
He explicitly wrote that regarding Bishul a Mechalel Shabbos is not equivalent to a Goy ?? ????????? ?????? ????.
Please look up the word explicit in the dictionary; you’re using it incorrectly. You made a diyuk, that’s all. I learned it differently, and backed it up from the previous teshuvah (in which you choose to ignore “my favorite line”).
See the Shach 124:14 that Yayin Nesech depends on Avoda Zara
Of course it does, but we’re discussing stam yaynom.
That’s referring to a mumar l’avodas kochavim.
The Chasam Sofer YD 120 and Igros Moshe YD 2:132 also rule that way and specify a Mechalel Shabbos.
No doubt it’s assur, you don’t need to bring a raya. We’re discussing why it’s assur. You’re completely missing my point.
You also haven’t defended your contention that most poskim are meikil. The B’er Moshe disagrees with you.
??) ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???”? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ?????? ???? (???? ??? ??) ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ???) ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???? (????? ??? ???) ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ??. ????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? (???? ??? ??) ?????? ???? ?????, ??? ??? ?”?
“???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???, ????? ???
???? ????? ??????, ??? ???? ????? ??”
Where did you get this quote from? It’s not in the Igros Moshe we have been discussing until now.
“Please look up the word explicit in the dictionary; you’re using it incorrectly”
Sorry, it is EXPLICIT in Igros Moshe that he holds that Bishul of a Mechalel Shabbos is Mutar and Yayin is Assur. You are trying to put words in his mouth based on weak Diyukim that are inappropriate to make in an Acharon.
“See the Shach 124:14 that Yayin Nesech depends on Avoda Zara
Of course it does, but we’re discussing stam yaynom.
That’s referring to a mumar l’avodas kochavim.”
The Shach is also discussing Stam Yainam which is Assur to drink but Mutar b’Hana’ah, nevertheless, he ties it to AZ. While SA and the Shach in 124 are discussing a Mumar l’Kol HaTorah, the Chasam Sofer and Igros Moshe I quoted extend it to a Mechalel Shabbos who is also considered Mumar l’Kol HaTorah.
“You’re completely missing my point”
So,what IS your point?
“You also haven’t defended your contention that most poskim are meikil”
Well, you dropped half my list, so that’s why it sounds lacking.
Where did you get this quote from? It’s not in the Igros Moshe we have been discussing until now.
From here (I mentioned this twice already):
I’ll bl”n get to the rest of your post later.
“I mentioned this twice already”
unless you’ve had unapproved posts, this is the first time you are mentioning an IGM other than 1:45 and 1:46
did you realize that this teshuva from the unreliable 8th volume contradicts 2:132?
unless you’ve had unapproved posts, this is the first time you are mentioning an IGM other than 1:45 and 1:46
I embedded the link in the word “this”. I apologize for not being more clear. I should have mentioned it by name (number).
did you realize that this teshuva from the unreliable 8th volume contradicts 2:132?
I don’t think it does. Of course we are noheg issur, in O”C 5:37.8, he is referring to the origins of the issur as minhag to allow it wherever it wasn’t nahug.
I still intend to reply to the rest of your earlier post, but am currently short on time.
The Shach is also discussing Stam Yainam which is Assur to drink but Mutar b’Hana’ah
See Gr”a on the next line about mumar, which (by his reference) he defines as mumar l’avodes kochavim. I see no indication that he is toleh stam yayin davka on avodas kochavim.
So,what IS your point?
Not that yayin is mutar, rather that the same reasoning for the issur should apply to bishul.
you dropped half my list
You didn’t cite sources, besides which, your list is anyhow incomplete.
Why don’t one of you guys just open yabea omer? R’ Ovadia quotes everyone under the sun.
Because my mesorah is not according to Chacham Ovadiah Shlita”s derech; I don’t think it goes according to straight numbers (when it comes to acharonim, especially later ones).
I think uneeq’s point was that Yabia Omer is very good as an index of other sources. Even if you do not follow Chacham Ovadia’s position.
As far as numbers, many sources’ seforim were lost over the centuries and others were never written down in the first place, so counting a majority is basically impossible and almost pointless (unless there was an overwhelming consensus.)
10952,
I think your second paragraph answers your first.
DY: I was referring to looking up the vast sources he brings down. Not necessarily to pasken like him, but to look up those he quotes and their reasonings.
Also what you responded to 10952 does not make sense. Yabea Omer is a better index than any other sefer I know. Again, he might pasken based on numbers (not in my belief), but he will bring down more lost seforim and a plethora of poskim that nobody else has brought down. It won’t hurt you, so don’t get so defensive/offensive.
I wasn’t trying to be defensive/offensive, just explaining why it’s not crucial to the discussion.
I did actually try to look it up on Otzer Hachochma, because, as you say, it’s a good resource (and more), but I couldn’t figure out how to search for this teshuva, and I forgot to write down the mareh makom supplied by hello99.
From hello99’s earlier post:
He only differentiates in the sense that if there’s no supervision, it’s not even a shaila, but is explicitly machmir even when there is no chashash that he would add something unkosher.
DY: So,what IS your point?
Not that yayin is mutar, rather that the same reasoning for the issur should apply to bishul.
So your main point is that when Igros Moshe 1:46 writes “???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????”? ?? ????????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????”, what he really means is that Bishul and wine are equivalent and both apply to a Mechalel Shabbos due to the Minhag?!?!
You’ll need a really big shoehorn for that one.
I’ll try to get to your other points later.
No, I didn’t read it into that sentence. In the previous sentence, though, he writes that “shar issurim” are a “safek gadol” so it’s hard to believe that in the following sentence (your favorite line 🙂 ), he is specifically excluding bishul.
When you quoted the Chasam Sofer YD 120 and Igros Moshe YD 2:132 that stam yanom is assur, you were missing my point because I wasn’t arguing for stam yaynom of a mechallel Shabbos to be muttar.
The way you read that Shach 124:14 that Yayin Nesech depends on Avoda Zara, he is arguing on the Ra”n in Chullin (last one on 4b).
Hello99,
you posted right after Shabbos in the US. Are you here now, or are you still there in EY? Did you decide not to post while it’s Shabbos in the US, or “poonkt” that’s when you posted?
I looked up the Yabia Omer. His reason to be meikil meikar hadin (he still holds it’s better to be machmir) is that the Riva”sh is a “tana ham’sayeia”. I think, though, that the Riva”sh is arguing on the Teshuvas HaRashb”a (brought in B”Y 119) because the reasoning of the Riva”sh should nor asser the yayin of a mechallel Shabbos, since he doesn’t ever make yayin nesech.
DY: “No, I didn’t read it into that sentence. In the previous sentence, though, he writes that “shar issurim” are a “safek gadol” so it’s hard to believe that in the following sentence (your favorite line 🙂 ), he is specifically excluding bishul”
“Clearly, although he (IGM) personally would be mattir, he does not do so in the face of the consensus of the Acharonim. (He is also clearly equating other issurim of maachalei akum with yayin.)”
I’m really confused how you are understanding the Igros Moshe 1:46. What he says is that “other Issurim”, in contrast to wine, are “very doubtful” if there is any prohibition for a Mechalel Shabbos, and he leans to be Mattir.
I don’t know where you see deference to Machmirim on Bishul or milk. I don’t understand why you think favorite line” should exclude Bishul. And I don’t understand why you think he equates Bishul to wine. Please reread the IGM.
DY: “He only differentiates in the sense that if there’s no supervision, it’s not even a shaila, but is explicitly machmir even when there is no chashash that he would add something unkosher”
No. He writes that when there is supervision, there is no issue of Ma’achalim Assurim. the only remaining concern would be Chasnus, and on that he concurrs with the Tiferes l’Moshe that Chasnus does not apply to a Mechalel Shabbos.
DY: “You didn’t cite sources, besides which, your list is anyhow incomplete”
You could have asked. Tzitz Eliezer is 9:41.Rav Belsky is in OU document a-133, I have requested it from the OU and will post it when I receive it. Rav Nebenthal is ????? ???? – ?? ?? ????
???? (?”? ???? ???”?) : ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???”?, ??? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?
?????: ?’ ????? ????
I’m sorry it was incomplete. I shouldn’t have left out the Kaf HaChaim 113:1 who is also lenient.
I translate “safek gadol” as a big safek (i.e. a big machlokes), not as “very doubtful”.
No. He writes that when there is supervision, there is no issue of Ma’achalim Assurim. the only remaining concern would be Chasnus, and on that he concurrs with the Tiferes l’Moshe that Chasnus does not apply to a Mechalel Shabbos.
Are you referring to the M”Y or the TT”V? (Both are machmir even when there is no chashash of maachalos assuros, read them again.)
You didn’t mention Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, Lechem Hapanim, Mahar”i Assad, Mahara”m Schick (who asks on the TL”M and remains “v’tzorich iyun”, so it’s not a clear psak, but he seems to lean towards issur), Chelkas Binyomin.
Bottom line: it’s a big machlokes acharonim (which is what I think R’ Moshe meant by “safek gadol”, esp. in light of the previous teshuva).
????? ????? ????? ?????? (??? ???), ????? ?? ????? ??????
??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?????,
????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?????
????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ?????
????
(From M”Y, I saw the ?????? inside as well, it’s in ??????.)
Ok e/o here is a Shaila – Crock pot not turned on Fri. nite -how do you get it on? Can you get a Goy? Is there Ameira L’acum or Bishul A’cum?
DY: Rav Moshe’s Derech is generally not to be concerned with what the later Achronim say, so I doubt his “Safek Gadol” comes from a few relatively recent SHUTim.
Sam2,
He wouldn’t be concerned about the Minchas Yitzchak, for example, but he wouldn’t dismiss a Chasam Sofer (although he might argue).
Health,
Is there Ameira L’acum or Bishul A’cum?
Probably both (even without amira, there would still be a problem of hana’ah).
You are correct that the Shach does not seem to agree with the Ran who includes a Mechalel Shabbos in the general Gezeira against Goyim. However, this is exactly the point. Instead, he learns like the Rivash 394 that Yabia Omer quoted, that a Mumar makes Stam Yainam because of a risk of real Yayin Nesech. This is clearly not relevant to Bishul. So the Shach would appear to side with the Meikilim.
BTW, I heard that they printed a 9th volume. What do people say about its reliability?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.